On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> On 2/16/2011 11:01 AM, George Herbert wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/15/2011 10:21 PM, Eric Westbrook wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 22:36, Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu>>>> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > If the effort is to entice legacy space holders into joining
>>>> ARIN, don't
>>>> > try to penalize them. Give them a positive incentive.
>>>>>>>> I don't see this proposal as involving any penalties. Indeed, it is
>>>> the absence of this kind of thinking that consistently leads to
>>>> proposals to force legacy holders into the ARIN regime. The
>>>> (implied) incentive in 133 is that legacy holders can go to other
>>>> service providers - assuming of course, that we retain a consistent
>>>> and integrated whois that works across multiple service providers.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing's broken today with respect to the services in question. I can
>>>> only envision additional costs, rigmarole, and coordination issues to
>>>> come with a multiple-provider regime.
>>>>>>>> Perhaps what's broken is that legacy holders like me don't pay -- at
>>>> least, that seems to be the source of some significant outrage here.
>>>>>> Not to me, and it's never really been that much.
>>>>>> What I really resent most of all are the legacy-assigned blocks that
>>> are NOT in use.
>>>>>> I don't care if you were assigned a legacy block 15 years ago that your
>>> paying nothing for - and you have 60% or more utilized. If anything,
>>> you have my support to have at it.
>>>>>> But I do very much care if you have a legacy block that you got 15
>>> years ago that is at 1% utilization because your too fat, dumb, and lazy
>>> to renumber into a /24 within that block and return the rest to
>>> the RIR.
>>>>>> I oppose this policy proposal.
>>>> More generally - the number of "large enough to matter" blocks which
>> may be truly badly utilized and therefore highly attractive to
>> encourage legacy holders to renumber and vacate isn't that big in the
>> great scheme of things. It will not save "the end of the world" (IPv6
>> transition imminence) from happening, given that if they haven't
>> already started, a renumbering effort for a large enterprise will take
>> months to low years to fully develop and implement. I doubt that we
>> could free up IPv4 space at the rate that APNIC needs more.
>>>> IF this were to be successful, the time to do it was 2-4 years ago.
>> This kind of thing was discussed 2-4 years ago and the math didn't
> support it then, either.
It's been discussed since at least 1987, when I started using the Internet.
Since exhaustion became a problem on the "planning horizon" it's come
up regularly.
Why push the issue now, when the math not supporting it is even a worse case?
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com